Appellate Tax Board

Where a Newton landowner submitted into evidence a value-per-square-foot analysis, that, without more, was not persuasive evidence of overvaluation. Accordingly, his abatement request must be denied. “The appellant did not submit any evidence of sales or assessments of comparable properties other than ...

Where a Worcester landowner argued that her property was overvalued because the assessors failed to account for (1) the subject dwelling’s lack of a central heating system and (2) the subject property’s location, adjacent to a shallow and stagnant pond, ...

Where (1) the sale price paid by Boylston landowners two months after the date of assessment was the best indication of the subject property’s fair cash value, (2) the landowners offered insufficient evidence to establish that they overpaid for the property, and (3) the sales and assessment evidence offered by both parties supported the assessment, the landowners failed to meet their burden of proving that their property was overvalued.

Where the Commissioner of Revenue imposed monetary penalties on the proprietor of a retail store for not electronically filing sales and use tax returns and for also not paying those taxes electronically, the penalties should be abated given the proprietor’s lack of ownership of and knowledge about personal computers.

Where the appellant asserted that his 14.75-acre parcel of land improved with a shopping center was overvalued, there were flaws in the appellant’s real estate valuation expert’s income approach that rendered insufficient evidence on which to base a fair cash value determination.

Where the Springfield assessors’ consultant produced a revised value of a landowner’s property, but the assessors did not reduce the original assessment, the revised assessment was a more accurate reflection of the subject property’s fair market value than the assessed value, so the landowner is entitled to a tax abatement.

Where Williamstown landowners claim that their home was overvalued for the fiscal year 2012, they have failed to meet their burden of proof, as the property’s sale price of $771,000 was not the best evidence of the fair cash value, and the assessor’s comparable-sales analysis supported the assessment.